Bible Corruptions
- Thread starter BlessedCreator
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
1) "Traditional Text Line:" Greek --> Syriac --> Syriac & Old Latin --> Greek --> Greek --> Latin --> Greek --> German --> Middle English --> Greek --> Late Middle English --> Greek --> Early Modern English
2) "Alexandrian Text Line:" Greek --> Greek --> Greek --> Greek --> Greek --> Greek --> Latin --> Greek --> English --> Greek --> Greek --> English
If we take this chart at face value, it is saying that the KJV is the product of 11 consecutive translations between languages. (That is, 11 steps away from the original text.) So evidently, accuracy is best preserved by increasing the number of translations between languages, so ideally we should be working to increase the number of translations even further so we can maximize the accuracy of our modern Bibles. Only when our Bibles are infinitely distanced from their original manuscripts will we achieve perfect revelation of God's will for our lives. Brilliant!
2) "Alexandrian Text Line:" Greek --> Greek --> Greek --> Greek --> Greek --> Greek --> Latin --> Greek --> English --> Greek --> Greek --> English
If we take this chart at face value, it is saying that the KJV is the product of 11 consecutive translations between languages. (That is, 11 steps away from the original text.) So evidently, accuracy is best preserved by increasing the number of translations between languages, so ideally we should be working to increase the number of translations even further so we can maximize the accuracy of our modern Bibles. Only when our Bibles are infinitely distanced from their original manuscripts will we achieve perfect revelation of God's will for our lives. Brilliant!
-
3
- Show all
1) "Traditional Text Line:" Greek --> Syriac --> Syriac & Old Latin --> Greek --> Greek --> Latin --> Greek --> German --> Middle English --> Greek --> Late Middle English --> Greek --> Early Modern English
2) "Alexandrian Text Line:" Greek --> Greek --> Greek --> Greek --> Greek --> Greek --> Latin --> Greek --> English --> Greek --> Greek --> English
If we take this chart at face value, it is saying that the KJV is the product of 11 consecutive translations between languages. (That is, 11 steps away from the original text.) So evidently, accuracy is best preserved by increasing the number of translations between languages, so ideally we should be working to increase the number of translations even further so we can maximize the accuracy of our modern Bibles. Only when our Bibles are infinitely distanced from their original manuscripts will we achieve perfect revelation of God's will for our lives. Brilliant!
2) "Alexandrian Text Line:" Greek --> Greek --> Greek --> Greek --> Greek --> Greek --> Latin --> Greek --> English --> Greek --> Greek --> English
If we take this chart at face value, it is saying that the KJV is the product of 11 consecutive translations between languages. (That is, 11 steps away from the original text.) So evidently, accuracy is best preserved by increasing the number of translations between languages, so ideally we should be working to increase the number of translations even further so we can maximize the accuracy of our modern Bibles. Only when our Bibles are infinitely distanced from their original manuscripts will we achieve perfect revelation of God's will for our lives. Brilliant!
-
1
- Show all
S
I do agree that every single word in the original languages are important and should be contended for.
The KJV used the word candlesticks in Rev 1. Candlesticks were not invented at the time Rev 1 was written.
The Greek word was lychnias lampstand. Does it change the meaning? A little. The lampstands were fed with oil and there is symbolism explained in Zech about that. The symbolism is robbed by using the word candlestick.
So your theory that KJV is a better English translation that adheres to the original words was just proved wrong and an example was given proving that the opposite is true.
In this example the word lampstand should be contended for (if you are sincere) not the word candlestick.
If your love for the integrity of EVERY SINGLE WORD is sincere then you would contend for the word in the greek lychnias that should be translated lampstand because it was not possible that John was shown candlesticks as they had not been invented yet.
Will you argue for the word candlestick instead of lampstand because it is in the KJV?
If so, it would sound like belligerence and not intellectual honesty and therefore what would be the purpose of continuing the conversation.
There is no perfect English translation. In some cases the KJV did a better job in my opinion such as Rev 5:9-10 with the word we, and us instead of people and they. In other cases the ESV did a better job such as Rev 1 and lampstand instead of Candlestick.
We have to do our own research for each difference by examining the copies of original manuscripts where there are differences and use textual criticism to make an educated decision as to which translation of a particular sentence is the most reliable.
Your approach seems to be suggesting some kind of blind cult adherence to a translation without examining the manuscript sources for ourselves? Why that is just pure fanaticism, motivated by the root of academic sloth, laziness and ignorance.
The KJV used the word candlesticks in Rev 1. Candlesticks were not invented at the time Rev 1 was written.
The Greek word was lychnias lampstand. Does it change the meaning? A little. The lampstands were fed with oil and there is symbolism explained in Zech about that. The symbolism is robbed by using the word candlestick.
So your theory that KJV is a better English translation that adheres to the original words was just proved wrong and an example was given proving that the opposite is true.
In this example the word lampstand should be contended for (if you are sincere) not the word candlestick.
If your love for the integrity of EVERY SINGLE WORD is sincere then you would contend for the word in the greek lychnias that should be translated lampstand because it was not possible that John was shown candlesticks as they had not been invented yet.
Will you argue for the word candlestick instead of lampstand because it is in the KJV?
If so, it would sound like belligerence and not intellectual honesty and therefore what would be the purpose of continuing the conversation.
There is no perfect English translation. In some cases the KJV did a better job in my opinion such as Rev 5:9-10 with the word we, and us instead of people and they. In other cases the ESV did a better job such as Rev 1 and lampstand instead of Candlestick.
We have to do our own research for each difference by examining the copies of original manuscripts where there are differences and use textual criticism to make an educated decision as to which translation of a particular sentence is the most reliable.
Your approach seems to be suggesting some kind of blind cult adherence to a translation without examining the manuscript sources for ourselves? Why that is just pure fanaticism, motivated by the root of academic sloth, laziness and ignorance.
-
3
-
2
- Show all
While I agree that lampstand would have been preferable, Thayer's Greek lexicon allows for both, and includes candelabrum.
Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 3087: λυχνία
λυχνία, λυχνίας, ἡ, a later Greek word for the earlierλυχνίον, see Lob. ad Phryn., p. 313f; (Wetstein (1752) on Matthew 5:15; Winers Grammar, 24); the Sept. forמְנורָה; a (candlestick) lampstand, candelabrum:
Had they transliterated "menorah" in the OT, and used "menorah" in the NT, that would have been ideal, and would have provided the correspondence, since Christ was speaking of menorahs as representative of churches.
However, apart from these idiosyncracies (which can easily be fixed by referring to the concordances and lexicons) one needs to look at the bigger picture. The primary issue with ALL modern versions is that they have discarded the Received Text and resorted to the Critical Text -- WHICH IS A CORRUPT TEXT. So no matter how skillful modern translators are, if the root is rotten, then the fruit is rotten.
Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 3087: λυχνία
λυχνία, λυχνίας, ἡ, a later Greek word for the earlierλυχνίον, see Lob. ad Phryn., p. 313f; (Wetstein (1752) on Matthew 5:15; Winers Grammar, 24); the Sept. forמְנורָה; a (candlestick) lampstand, candelabrum:
Had they transliterated "menorah" in the OT, and used "menorah" in the NT, that would have been ideal, and would have provided the correspondence, since Christ was speaking of menorahs as representative of churches.
However, apart from these idiosyncracies (which can easily be fixed by referring to the concordances and lexicons) one needs to look at the bigger picture. The primary issue with ALL modern versions is that they have discarded the Received Text and resorted to the Critical Text -- WHICH IS A CORRUPT TEXT. So no matter how skillful modern translators are, if the root is rotten, then the fruit is rotten.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Please read and study this article, as well as many other articles on this web site.
Is the Received Text Based on a Few Late Manuscripts?
https://www.wayoflife.org/database/is_the_received_text_based_on_few.html
More similar articles are found here:
https://www.wayoflife.org/database/textsversionsheader.html
Books by 19th century textual scholar and expert John William Burgon provide primary source details.
Is the Received Text Based on a Few Late Manuscripts?
https://www.wayoflife.org/database/is_the_received_text_based_on_few.html
More similar articles are found here:
https://www.wayoflife.org/database/textsversionsheader.html
Books by 19th century textual scholar and expert John William Burgon provide primary source details.
Not so. Take some time to carefully study the works of John William Burgon and F. H. A. Scrivener -- the leading textual scholar and authority on the 19th century. The both exposed the egregious fallacies of Westcott and Hort (along with Bishop Ellicott). Those fallacies continue in all modern versions.
Edward F. Hills is also an excellent scholar who vigorously defended the King James Bible through proper discerning scholarship.
Testimonies of KJV Defenders - Edward F. Hills
Updated August 2, 2004 (first published August 23, 1999)
David Cloud, Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061
866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org
This is another installment in our series of testimonies of men and organizations that defend the King James Bible.
Those who want to take a neutral position on the issue of Bible texts and versions often claim that the current defense of the King James Bible and its underlying Greek Received Text is an unnecessarily divisive, near-cultic position that has no historical precedent among fundamentalists and other strong Bible believers. This is historic revisionism of the worst sort. The fact is that only recently have professing fundamentalists begun using and defending the modern versions. Though some fundamentalist leaders might have had their “fingers crossed” when they spoke of the King James Bible as the preserved Word of God in English, multitudes of others believed it was exactly that and believed it without equivocation. And thousands of strong Bible believers during the past two centuries have defended the Greek Received Text as the preserved Word of God and have condemned modern textual criticism as heresy...
DR. EDWARD F. HILLS
Edward F. Hills (1912-1981) was a respected Presbyterian scholar. He was a distinguished Latin and Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Yale University. He also earned the Th.B. degree from Westminster Theological Seminary and the Th.M. degree from Columbia Theological Seminary.
After doing doctoral work at the University of Chicago in New Testament textual criticism, he completed his program at Harvard, earning the Th.D. in this field. Though largely ignored by professional textual critics and translators, Hills has encouraged thousands of pastors, evangelists, missionaries, and Bible teachers by his defense of the Received Text and his exposure of the unbelief of modern textual criticism.
In 1956, he published The King James Version Defended: A Christian View of the New Testament Manuscripts. Key chapters include “A Short History of Unbelief,” “A Christian View of the Biblical Text,” “The Facts of New Testament Textual Criticism,” “Dean Burgon and the Traditional New Testament Text,” and “The Textus Receptus and the King James Version.”
Hills devastated the Westcott-Text theories and exposed the rationalistic foundation of the entire modern version superstructure. Hills saw the issue of authority in the field of Bible texts and versions:
“In regard to Bible versions many contemporary Christians are behaving like spoiled and rebellious children. They want a Bible version that pleases them no matter whether it pleases God or not. ‘We want a Bible version in our own idiom,’ they clamor. ‘We want a Bible that talks to us in the same way in which we talk to our friends over the telephone. We want an informal God, no better educated then ourselves, with a limited vocabulary and a taste for modern slang.’ And having thus registered their preference, they go their several ways. Some of them unite with the modernists in using the R.S.V. or the N.E.B. Others deem the N.A.S.V. or the N.I.V. more ‘evangelical.’ Still others opt for the T.E.V. or the Living Bible.
“But God is bigger than you are, dear friend, and THE BIBLE VERSION WHICH YOU MUST USE IS NOT A MATTER FOR YOU TO DECIDE ACCORDING TO YOUR WHIMS AND PREJUDICES. IT HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED FOR YOU BY THE WORKINGS OF GOD’S SPECIAL PROVIDENCE. ... Put on the spiritual mind that leads to life and peace! Receive by faith the True Text of God’s holy Word, which has been preserved down through the ages by His special providence and now is found in the Masoretic Hebrew text, the Greek Textus Receptus, and the King James Version and other faithful translations!” (E.F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, pp. 242,43)....
“... the Bible is God’s infallibly inspired Word which has been preserved by God’s special providence down through the ages. ... And the providential preservation of the Scriptures did not cease with the invention of printing. For why would God watch over the New Testament text at one time and not at another time, before the invention of printing but not afterward? Hence the formation of the Textus Receptus was God-guided. THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS, THEREFORE, IS A TRUSTWORTHY REPRODUCTION OF THE INFALLIBLY INSPIRED ORIGINAL NEW TESTAMENT TEXT AND IS AUTHORITATIVE. AND SO IS THE KING JAMES VERSION AND ALL OTHER FAITHFUL TRANSLATIONS OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS” (Hills, Believing Bible Study, p. 87)...
Hills did not see merely a bumbling Erasmus or a pompous King James or a sectarian Authorized Version translation committee, he saw God; he believed God’s promises to preserve His Word. Detractors of the “King James Only” position tend to scoff at or make light of this, but the very fact that they scoff is frightful. It is a very dangerous thing to scoff at faith that is founded upon the Word of God... [Note: Between Erasmus and the King James Bible, there were about 100 years and about a dozen textual scholars who refined the work of Erasmus so that a Received Text was accepted by all without question. The translators of the KJV were faithful to God above King James]
In my estimation, Dr. Hill’s book The King James Version Defended is one of the most important books available on the subject of Bible texts and versions. It is available from Bible for Today, 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108. 800-564-6109 (orders), 856-854-4452 (voice), 856-854-2464 (fax), BFT@BibleForToday.org (e-mail).
https://www.wayoflife.org/database/hills.html
Edward F. Hills is also an excellent scholar who vigorously defended the King James Bible through proper discerning scholarship.
Testimonies of KJV Defenders - Edward F. Hills
Updated August 2, 2004 (first published August 23, 1999)
David Cloud, Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061
866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org
This is another installment in our series of testimonies of men and organizations that defend the King James Bible.
Those who want to take a neutral position on the issue of Bible texts and versions often claim that the current defense of the King James Bible and its underlying Greek Received Text is an unnecessarily divisive, near-cultic position that has no historical precedent among fundamentalists and other strong Bible believers. This is historic revisionism of the worst sort. The fact is that only recently have professing fundamentalists begun using and defending the modern versions. Though some fundamentalist leaders might have had their “fingers crossed” when they spoke of the King James Bible as the preserved Word of God in English, multitudes of others believed it was exactly that and believed it without equivocation. And thousands of strong Bible believers during the past two centuries have defended the Greek Received Text as the preserved Word of God and have condemned modern textual criticism as heresy...
DR. EDWARD F. HILLS
Edward F. Hills (1912-1981) was a respected Presbyterian scholar. He was a distinguished Latin and Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Yale University. He also earned the Th.B. degree from Westminster Theological Seminary and the Th.M. degree from Columbia Theological Seminary.
After doing doctoral work at the University of Chicago in New Testament textual criticism, he completed his program at Harvard, earning the Th.D. in this field. Though largely ignored by professional textual critics and translators, Hills has encouraged thousands of pastors, evangelists, missionaries, and Bible teachers by his defense of the Received Text and his exposure of the unbelief of modern textual criticism.
In 1956, he published The King James Version Defended: A Christian View of the New Testament Manuscripts. Key chapters include “A Short History of Unbelief,” “A Christian View of the Biblical Text,” “The Facts of New Testament Textual Criticism,” “Dean Burgon and the Traditional New Testament Text,” and “The Textus Receptus and the King James Version.”
Hills devastated the Westcott-Text theories and exposed the rationalistic foundation of the entire modern version superstructure. Hills saw the issue of authority in the field of Bible texts and versions:
“In regard to Bible versions many contemporary Christians are behaving like spoiled and rebellious children. They want a Bible version that pleases them no matter whether it pleases God or not. ‘We want a Bible version in our own idiom,’ they clamor. ‘We want a Bible that talks to us in the same way in which we talk to our friends over the telephone. We want an informal God, no better educated then ourselves, with a limited vocabulary and a taste for modern slang.’ And having thus registered their preference, they go their several ways. Some of them unite with the modernists in using the R.S.V. or the N.E.B. Others deem the N.A.S.V. or the N.I.V. more ‘evangelical.’ Still others opt for the T.E.V. or the Living Bible.
“But God is bigger than you are, dear friend, and THE BIBLE VERSION WHICH YOU MUST USE IS NOT A MATTER FOR YOU TO DECIDE ACCORDING TO YOUR WHIMS AND PREJUDICES. IT HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED FOR YOU BY THE WORKINGS OF GOD’S SPECIAL PROVIDENCE. ... Put on the spiritual mind that leads to life and peace! Receive by faith the True Text of God’s holy Word, which has been preserved down through the ages by His special providence and now is found in the Masoretic Hebrew text, the Greek Textus Receptus, and the King James Version and other faithful translations!” (E.F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, pp. 242,43)....
“... the Bible is God’s infallibly inspired Word which has been preserved by God’s special providence down through the ages. ... And the providential preservation of the Scriptures did not cease with the invention of printing. For why would God watch over the New Testament text at one time and not at another time, before the invention of printing but not afterward? Hence the formation of the Textus Receptus was God-guided. THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS, THEREFORE, IS A TRUSTWORTHY REPRODUCTION OF THE INFALLIBLY INSPIRED ORIGINAL NEW TESTAMENT TEXT AND IS AUTHORITATIVE. AND SO IS THE KING JAMES VERSION AND ALL OTHER FAITHFUL TRANSLATIONS OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS” (Hills, Believing Bible Study, p. 87)...
Hills did not see merely a bumbling Erasmus or a pompous King James or a sectarian Authorized Version translation committee, he saw God; he believed God’s promises to preserve His Word. Detractors of the “King James Only” position tend to scoff at or make light of this, but the very fact that they scoff is frightful. It is a very dangerous thing to scoff at faith that is founded upon the Word of God... [Note: Between Erasmus and the King James Bible, there were about 100 years and about a dozen textual scholars who refined the work of Erasmus so that a Received Text was accepted by all without question. The translators of the KJV were faithful to God above King James]
In my estimation, Dr. Hill’s book The King James Version Defended is one of the most important books available on the subject of Bible texts and versions. It is available from Bible for Today, 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108. 800-564-6109 (orders), 856-854-4452 (voice), 856-854-2464 (fax), BFT@BibleForToday.org (e-mail).
https://www.wayoflife.org/database/hills.html
S
I have read the first article with an open mind hoping to learn something that would show me why some have such strong opinions on this topic but to be honest the argument presented may have sounded good to the writer but after reading it I am now more convinced than I was before that we DID need the scholarly work that has gone into the production of the modern English translations. I see the hand of the Lord in that effort as much as I see the hand of the Lord in the production of the KJV. And I do see it as a bit of fanaticism to cling to the fantasy that Erasmus was divinely inspired. There are too many assumptions and blind faith on what Erasmus supposedly had access to. And FF Bruce does believe in the Divine inspiration of Scripture so the statement that he didn't was false. That accusation alone suggest a lack of intellectual honesty.
I will keep reading with an open mind.
I will keep reading with an open mind.
This obsession with the KJB puts me in mind of the Moslem belief about the ''real Koran'' That is the real one is only found in Arabic
and translations are imperfect renderings of it. Anyone who has problems with modern translations have two choices. They either
stick with the KJB and leave others to read whatever Bible suits them or Do courses in Hebrew and Greek and only read Bibles in
those languages.
and translations are imperfect renderings of it. Anyone who has problems with modern translations have two choices. They either
stick with the KJB and leave others to read whatever Bible suits them or Do courses in Hebrew and Greek and only read Bibles in
those languages.
-
2
- Show all
Thread post was reported (by me) to be removed because I found out later that some of the content was in violation of a copyright. Please visit https://www.gffg.info/1/corruptedbibles.html for proof of corruption in modern Bibles. The copyrighted content were the list items of corruptions found in the different Bibles. The content is available in the above link with proper copyright rules followed
The 1455 Gutenberg Bible was the first Bible printed.
Today there are so many versions, and so much politic behind their formulation, like the KJV. But I don't think we can forget that man had a hand in all that is our Bible of today.
The warning in Revelation 22 from John is a warning concerning his book of Revelation, not the whole Bible.
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book,and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
Today there are so many versions, and so much politic behind their formulation, like the KJV. But I don't think we can forget that man had a hand in all that is our Bible of today.
The warning in Revelation 22 from John is a warning concerning his book of Revelation, not the whole Bible.
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book,and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
-
1
- Show all
The problem with criticizing Westcott and Hort today is that their work is irrelevant. Better scholars than them have put all the manuscript evidence into the critical texts. You can bleat all you like about corruption, but you can't demonstrate without using circular reasoning that that so-called "received text" is any better.
-
1
- Show all
Your linked source does not prove anything except that there are differences. Any criticism that compares modern translations to the KJV is fundamentally flawed. Using exactly the same logic, one can claim with equal authority that the KJV has verses and words added. The only valid way to compare the two is to compare both KJV and modern translations with an impartial third source, which is the original-language manuscripts dating from before 1450 or so. All of them.
-
2
- Show all
S
The NIV is a dynamic equivalent which seeks to deliver the meaning in the Greek if the functional equivalent word for word into english does not sufficiently do that. That is the objective behind the NIV translation as I have heard it explained and this might be why you find such a drastic difference is verses. The question you have to ask yourself, or research, is it true? Does the NIV translate the meaning of the Greek better than the KJV in those cases you have cited as corruptions. Just you seeing that there is a difference from the NIV and the KJV is not evidence of corruption. Your outrage is not evidence of corruption. That is just evidence of your ignorance (lack on knowing) as to WHY the NIV is different. Once you examine the Greek from a scholarly view you can determine if it is true that the NIV translated the shades of Greek meaning from the original language which was intended by the author which would have been understood by the Greek reader or if it did not. If the answer is that it did, then it is not a corruption from the original language at all. If for example the Greek work meant lampstand and they translated it flashlight then you might have cause for outrage. We do not need it to be modernized to understand. If the greek word means lampstand and they translated it candlestick like the KJV did we still should be outraged. But I take it you are not. If the NIV translated it lampstand then they did a better job in that instance than the KJV for sure. That is a point we can agree on. Each case you cited would have to be analyzed from the manuscripts by a Greek scholar to determine whether NIV is closer to the shades of meaning in the Greek or if the KJV is closer. I prefer reading the KJV and yet I also like the ESV. I know that many Greek Scholars like the NIV which makes me realize that it must have value because these are some of the best scholars of our day.
-
1
- Show all